G.R. No. 92244 February 9, 1993
Lessons Applicable: Promissory Notes and Checks (Negotiable Instruments Law)
FACTS:
- Gempesaw owns and operates four grocery stores
- to pay their debts of her supplies, she draws checks against her account
- she signed each and every crossed check without bothering to verify the accuracy of the checks against the corresponding invoices because she reposed full and implicit trust and confidence on her bookkeeper.
- although the Bank notified her of all checks presented to and paid by the bank, petitioner did not verify he correctness of the returned checks, much less check if the payees actually received the checks in payment for the supplies she received
- It was only after the lapse of more 2 years that petitioner found out about the fraudulent manipulations of her bookkeeper
- November 7, 1984: Gempesaw made a written demand on respondent drawee Bank to credit her account with the money value of the 82 checks totalling P1,208.606.89 for having been wrongfully charged against her account
- January 23, 1985: Gempesaw filed against Philippine Bank of Communications (drawee Bank) for recovery of the money value of 82 checks charged against the Gempesaw's account on the ground that the payees' indorsements were forgeries
- RTC: dismissed the complaint
- CA: affirmed
- Gempesaw gross negligence = promixate cause of the loss
ISSUE: W/N Gempesaw has a right to recover the amount attributable to the forgeries
HELD: NO. REMANDED to the trial court for the reception of evidence to determine the exact amount of loss suffered by the petitioner, considering that she partly benefited from the issuance of the questioned checks since the obligation for which she issued them were apparently extinguished, such that only the excess amount over and above the total of these actual obligations must be considered as loss of which one half must be paid by respondent drawee bank to herein petitioner.
- Petitioner completed the checks by signing them as drawer and thereafter authorized her employee Alicia Galang to deliver to payees
- GR: drawee bank who has paid a check on which an indorsement has been forged cannot charge the drawer's account for the amount of said check
- EX: where the drawer is guilty of such negligence which causes the bank to honor such a check or checks.
- Under the NIL, the only kind of indorsement which stops the further negotiation of an instrument is a restrictive indorsement which prohibits the further negotiation thereof.
Sec. 36. When indorsement restrictive. - An indorsement is restrictive which either chanrobles virtual law library
(a) Prohibits further negotiation of the instrument; or
xxx xxx xxx
- In this kind of restrictive indorsement, the prohibition to transfer or negotiate must be written in express words at the back of the instrument, so that any subsequent party may be forewarned that ceases to be negotiable.
- However, the restrictive indorsee acquires the right to receive payment and bring any action thereon as any indorser, but he can no longer transfer his rights as such indorsee where the form of the indorsement does not authorize him to do so.
- When it violated its internal rules that second endorsements are not to be accepted without the approval of its branch managers and it did accept the same upon the mere approval of Boon, a chief accountant, it contravened the tenor of its obligation at the very least, if it were not actually guilty of fraud or negligence
- drawee Bank did not discover the irregularity with respect to the acceptance of checks with second indorsement for deposit even without the approval of the branch manager despite periodic inspection conducted by a team of auditors from the main office constitutes negligence on the part of the bank in carrying out its obligations to its depositors
